So from the responses it's pretty clear people 'climbers' don't want it and the majority of those who use the area are climbers.. Could one not boy cott the idea? Just don't go.. Sure they'll destroy the place in the process but that seems the only way people learn these days..

A boycott only works if you can get close to 100% participation. If you can persuade nearly every climber in aus to care enough to boycott 'the best cliff in the world' for more than a month or two, you should probably run for PM with people skills like that.

Hmmmm, have the people suggesting a Camp 4 style solution actually been to camp 4?

It seems to me that the yankee rangers have done exactly what is being suggested by the arapiles development lobby; restrict numbers, raise prices, strictly enforce campsite deliniation and maximum stays......and force people into the expensive 'alternatives'. Not that there's a ton of better options for management in Yosmite, with the restricted space and millions of visitors.

The main lesson from the U.S. and europe is that too many people at climbing areas totally fuchs those areas. People who are trying to popularise climbing in australia for their own financial gain are utter scum! Try to torpedo their 'enterprises' at every opportunity.

On 19/10/2010 One Day Hero wrote:>Hmmmm, have the people suggesting a Camp 4 style solution actually been>to camp 4?>>It seems to me that the yankee rangers have done exactly what is being>suggested by the arapiles development lobby; restrict numbers, raise prices,>strictly enforce campsite deliniation and maximum stays......and force>people into the expensive 'alternatives'. Not that there's a ton of better>options for management in Yosmite, with the restricted space and millions>of visitors.>>Camp 4 sucks balls, don't let these arseholes fence off the freedom at>araps!>>The main lesson from the U.S. and europe is that too many people at climbing>areas totally fuchs those areas. People who are trying to popularise climbing>in australia for their own financial gain are utter scum! Try to torpedo>their 'enterprises' at every opportunity.

You can't complain about regulation and out-of-control crowds at the same time. If the campsites are becoming too crowded and are getting trashed and eroded and turning into a circus as a result, then maybe some kind of regulation really is needed. (Or you could ask everyone reeaaally nicely to stay home on the long weekends, travel around single file, and pitch their tents really close together to prevent further environmental damage.)

Yosemite is clearly an extreme case, can you imagine the carnage caused by that many visitors if there was no regulation at all? Araps isn't that bad yet, but it's only going to get worse.

Yeah, crowds suck, but the population is increasing and we have to learn to live together.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I disapprove of commercial development promoted/assisted by the parks service.

On 19/10/2010 One Day Hero wrote:>Hmmmm, have the people suggesting a Camp 4 style solution actually been>to camp 4?

Since you asked, yes.

>It seems to me that the yankee rangers have done exactly what is being>suggested by the arapiles development lobby; restrict numbers, raise prices,>strictly enforce campsite deliniation and maximum stays......and force>people into the expensive 'alternatives'. Not that there's a ton of better>options for management in Yosmite, with the restricted space and millions>of visitors.

Yosemite Valley isn't Arapiles. The valley is a centre of tourism and has restricted road and other access issues. The demand for accommodation exceeds supply, both in terms of available buildings and campsites but also what the valley could accommodate in terms of vehicle numbers and human presence.

Camp 4 stay limits have been implemented to allow the precious few sites to be shared by a wider community. Yes it sucks that it's so hard to go there and go climbing for 2 weeks but the fact is that there are around 250 spaces and generally at least 300 climbers who would like to stay there. By enforcing stay limits at least everyone gets to have a go.

The other option would be to expand Camp 4 or create another 'unstructured' campsite, but as I noted above the Valley is being worked to capacity anyway so why make a bad situation worse?

>Camp 4 sucks balls, don't let these arseholes fence off the freedom at>araps!>>The main lesson from the U.S. and europe is that too many people at climbing>areas totally fuchs those areas. People who are trying to popularise climbing>in australia for their own financial gain are utter scum! Try to torpedo>their 'enterprises' at every opportunity.

Well actually I expect some of these people are not utter scum but are seeking to
cater for people who might like to visit there. As long as that doesn't detract from the camping 'amenity' there I don't have an issue with it. I strongly doubt that enough additional tourists will be drawn to The Mount to create a nuisance for us climbers.
(Any more than the couple of grey nomads who parked in front of the toilets last year and ran their generators nearly 24/7, that is.)

>People who are trying to popularise climbing in australia for their own financial gain are >utter scum

if it is built, it needs to generate a profit, which means a regular flow of visitors. If these can't be sourced from the existing user base, then you have a situation where the proprietors will advertise & popularise the activity, drawing more punters to the mount. Given that it is already a popular location, and under stress from the folks willing to sleep in the dirt and/or drive from somewhere more luxurious, then the environment/amenity of the area will suffer from such a development - unless current users are excluded. So from a personal self-interest point of view as a user that likes dirt with my muesli I only win with such a development if there's a large enough proportion of the existing user base that is willing to fork over the dough for a higher standard of accomodation, & based on my own experience there I don't see this being the case.

People who are trying to popularise climbing>in australia for their own financial gain are utter scum! Try to torpedo>their 'enterprises' at every opportunity.

Okay, so you should be the first to be banned from Arapiles..
You must spend your climbing life soloing up unexplored areas, as you seem to spurn all forms of development.

Should we torpedo gear manufacturers? We only have good gear because there is a big enough global climbing market.
And should we decry those commercial operators who put lots of their own time into advocating access, or improving facilities (eg. upgrading the Pharos Gully track)?
what about those who teach people to climb in a safe and responsible manner?

The more popular the activity the stronger the political potential to be heard.

Developers of gear and new crags at least have something to offer the climbing community. If Parks Vic was desperate to do something for climbers then they could go to the VCC and ask what climbers want, or do work improving the facilities that already exist and work at Araps. This is just an effort to make money IMO

On 19/10/2010 One Day Hero wrote:
People who are trying to popularise climbing>in australia for their own financial gain are utter scum! Try to torpedo>their 'enterprises' at every opportunity.

ODH, that is one of the most stupid coments which I have heard in a long time.

Utter scum? Like gear shops?, climbing gyms?, people who run climbing activities for school groups?, climbing magazines?, climbing videos?, those who write guide books? Climbing instructors who teach people to climb?

Questions:
- who is driving this development? (the name of the person who is actually putting it in the public arena?)
- why?
- how can VCC get involved (rather than just writing a NONONO petition)

The slopey pines campsite is pretty shocking

The trees put in to replace the dying ones are mostly being crushed by careless campers & benighted climbers stumbling home

The garbage pile is filled with mostly recyclable goods

I'd be interested to hear from those involved in the trackcare work, and what they think. Let's face it, when it comes to actually doing things ourselves, climbers are more interested in "to bolt or not" than repairing tracks, planting trees & fixing our messy campsites.

On 19/10/2010 martym wrote:>Questions:>- who is driving this development? (the name of the person who is actually>putting it in the public arena?)
It is a departmental strategy. There is no identifiable single person driving it. In reality there possibly is an individual driving it but they are hidden somewhere in the bureaucracy and most likely have inherited this project from their predecessor. The strategy mentions partnership with "an investor". Whether this is a specific investor, as yet unidentified, or just a notional investor is not clear.>- why?
Because there are a lot of people who look at the number of people who visit Arapiles and wonder how to extract more money out of them. Ideally they would like to extract more money from fewer people: it's less work.>- how can VCC get involved (rather than just writing a NONONO petition)>
It is really about telling Tourism Vic that they are looking at the wrong issue. Instead of looking at Arapiles and saying "This is pretty weird but it sort of works; Can we help to make it better?", they are saying "This is pretty weird but there's a lot of people. Let's change it to something we think can make money."

On of the big problems to me is the idea that the Parks Service will auspice a business within the park. Parks will then not be in the business of managing the Park but of making the business viable.

An example of how successful Parks and Tourim Vic are at running businesses in parks is the Buffalo Chalet.>

The slopey pines campsite is pretty shocking

>

The trees put in to replace the dying ones are mostly being crushed

>by careless campers & benighted climbers stumbling home>

The garbage pile is filled with mostly recyclable goods

>>I'd be interested to hear from those involved in the trackcare work, and>what they think. Let's face it, when it comes to actually doing things>ourselves, climbers are more interested in "to bolt or not" than repairing>tracks, planting trees & fixing our messy campsites.

The question for Tourism Victoria is why they have chosen development of a commercial facility at Arapiles when :
1. There is a town less than 10 minutes away with numerous small businesses that already service visitors to Arapiles.
2. Any commercial development at Arapiles will disadvantage the existing businesses
3. the various studies over the last 20 years agree that development should centre on Natimuk.
4. such developments will compromise the nature of the Park

The thing smacks of government departments trying to pick winners to make money for their strained budgets. Generally government departments are very bad at that sort of thing and there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that this will be any different. By essentially rejecting local and their own specialist advice that developments at Arapiles will not be commercial they have set off on the wrong track already.

This has been covered several times. There used to be a recycling service. People proved themselves incapable of sorting their waste into recyclable and non-recyclable and the recycling people got tired of the loads being contaminated.

I believe the current idea is that you hang on to your recyclables and drop them off either in Nati or Horsham, I'm not sure as I generally use reusable containers for water and stuff and bring the little bit of glass and stuff home with me. Perhaps a local could remind me?

Yes. Aside from the working bees that Tracey organises to do track repair and so on, many VCC trips end with a emu walk of the campsite for this reason. Now I think about it somewhere there's a survey of the favourite beers of climbers based on the bottle tops collected during one such clean-up. I'll see if I can dig it up.

On 19/10/2010 martym wrote:>Questions:>- who is driving this development? the name of the person who is actually>putting it in the public arena? (ACTUALLY THAT MIGHT BE ME ZEBEDEE COZ THE REST OF THIS SHIT IS HIDING ON THE INTERWEBS)
Though not a total answer the minutes of the council meeting name two people who are pushing this forward-"Mr Nick Byrne, Manager Investment & Infrastructure
Projects Tourism Victoria also felt that further analysis of the market
potential for Arapiles was needed as the current feasibility had ‘undercooked’ (the possibilities in) his view. This was the general agreement by the sub-committee of the need to pursue opportunities at the precinct which was very heartening." Cr David Grimble is the one who endorses the sub committees view then two councillors vote it should be accepted. Grimble has created the persona as the community consultation guru which should encourage him to listen to the users of this park.

On 19/10/2010 martym wrote:>Questions:>- who is driving this development? (the name of the person who is actually>putting it in the public arena?)

There was a specific HRC councillor who raised it again, can't remember who though. If anyone finds that article ES was looking for, he's named in that.

>- why?

I expect someone has looked at visitor numbers for the Mt (large) vs income (low) and wondered if they can turn it into the new PV cash cow, a la Mt Buff and the Prom.

>- how can VCC get involved (rather than just writing a NONONO petition)

Tracey, being the efficient woman that she is, is probably already on the case.

>>

The slopey pines campsite is pretty shocking

>

The trees put in to replace the dying ones are mostly being crushed

>by careless campers & benighted climbers stumbling home>

The garbage pile is filled with mostly recyclable goods

I'm not sure that the Pines is particularly worse than it was 20 years ago. It was compacted and eroding then too. Still, management of the campsite through reveg, site building and tracks is not a bad thing. But I think they are getting carried away at the overuse and spilling into other areas problem. Once or twice a year, the campsite is full, and mostly, people just crowd in on top of each other. I don't think it necessitates on line booking and private campgrounds for the rest of the year. In fact, I would expect said private campground to go belly up, unless possibly PV regulated that all school groups had to use it. There just isn't the market. And if there isn't a market for private campgrounds, how on earth can there be a market for ecolodge facilities? Someone seems to have missed the point of the report which says there is no real space to grow the market for the Mt and the existing market doesn't need, want and won't pay for fancy services. Why pay $50000 for a report that you ignore????

Campers squashing our trees should be squashed themselves!!!! A lot of work goes into collecting seed, growing, planting out and watering. They are the shade and shelter of the future. Be nice to them. Feel free to water them. Last time I looked most of the trees seemed to be doing well, i hope they haven't gone downhill since then.

There are recycling facilities behind the firestation in Natimuk. Don't buy those large one off use spring water containers, they are a blight on society.

>There was a specific HRC councillor who raised it again, can't remember>who though. If anyone finds that article ES was looking for, he's named>in that.
Cr Mark Radford was the person quoted in the Mail-Times. Meg and I had a meeting with him to discuss it and it turns out that he's just the councillor approached for comment and has given them the position decided by council. i.e. it's a council planning document and it should be reviewed and considered to see what, if any, action should be taken. I think I'm putting his position correctly. He's interested as he's heavily involved in Natimuk but not directly involved. I think David Grimble is the driver on the council.
But, from the look of the TV strategy document it's Tourism Vic that is really pushing this.